On 29 jan, 21:56, Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com> wrote: > I'd say the answer depends on how often you have consistent groupings.
It's more about inconsistencies :-) > If the list of mounts that a given service or host uses is relatively > arbitrary, then there's no real way to get away from the 'realize' > calls. > > On the other hand, if the mounts tend to follow natural groupings, > then you could create a few sets of classes with the realize() calls > in them. Well, actually things are even worse than I thought. I'm new to the system we're trying to "puppetize": lots of mounts all over the place (NFS-happy people over here). So first I'm going to find map what is needed where with what options (RO/RW...). Bit of a nightmare but highly needed. :-/ > Either way there is at least somewhat of a win because your > configuration data is normalized: You only have mount details (other > than name) in one place in your configuration, for a given mount entry. Yep, you're right. > There is a third way, though; this won't work for all situations, but > you could tag your mounts with various metadata, and then use a query > to pull down mounts tagged a certain way. E.g., here's my simple test > that demonstrated this works: > > @notify { "It worked!": tag => [yay, ness] } > > Notify <| tag == yay |> > > This allows you to build arbitrary metadata around your resources, and > then add them to the catalog without literal listings. Will dig into this too. Thanks for your input ! -- Calimero --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---